Final Reply
Really Troy banning me for False Teaching - 'Agnostic' - after inviting people to debate the proof for God seems sort of contradictory.
(Thankyou for allowing editing it is very useful)
In the course of your many debates about this "proof" I am sure you have become familiar with the term "Special Pleading."
(for readers: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special_pleading)
This is usually where rational argument ends and belief and wishful thinking begin. This is the reason why the proof is not convincing to a non-believer, since they come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to.
For example, though I am happy to assume that the universe is not eternal for the sake of argument, the mechanism you suggest for proving it includes the idea of sin, which though you may not think so - is an exclusively religious idea, different from that of 'crime'. Also the mechanism you suggest, by your own admission is not explained by physical means alone - but by the intervention and plan of God. This would obviously invalidate the claim in the proof that it proves God from the physical alone, and also including the conclusion in the premises is a grievous error in any argument.
Another example of this is in Step 2. Without justification there is no reasonable basis for leaping to the conclusion that your creator needs to be the biblical God. As I have stated Testimony claiming Jesus as supernatural is not a form of physical proof. Claiming that God is uncreated - though you believe it and it is written in the Bible, is also not a form of physical proof - saying it is so because it is a must - is again - special pleading and not rational or logical argument.
These are two very good reasons why a non-believer will not consider your proof persuasive - since it requires them to already believe in some of the circular logic. Circular reasoning once accepted forms an unbroken loop where the end is also the beginning, whilst proper logical reasoning creates lines of reasoning and argument which encourages further investigation down an open line of enquiry. Such enquiry, especially scientific enquiry and logic are rules that help us from erring, and although they prevent one from finding the degree of certainty, that religions do choosing to follow these strictures gives one the sense that you are pursuing truth, even if it is unattainable in an absolute form.
Steps three and four I feel do not add to the argument - but like your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. It seems to me that you are not truly interested in the logical rigor, or verisimilitude of the proof - which you would be if you considered the best way to be tenacious in your beliefs. It seems to me now that the proof and its posting is only a gambit, if this is so you need to work on your reply if you want a chance at winning the game. It is not enough to simply knock down all the pieces with a swipe of your hand as my small sister once did - by giving in to frustration you lose both the opportunity and joy of learning and mastery through practice and consideration.
Also you have still failed to deal with the issue of cause and effect. Like gravity which we still call the 'Universal Law' of gravitation, Cause and Effect is not universal, as you claim. I can state that trillions of things everywhere are affected by gravity in a particular and quantifiable way. This would lead us to infer that it is the same everywhere - yet then we discover the exception and know that gravity is not universal as we thought it was - It merely described our lesser understanding of the universe at the time. Cause and effect is the same - the law is not immutable - and it is not unreasonable to assume something physical that is uncaused - if we are positing a temporally finite universe. You can say I am stupid for saying such a thing - but it is at least and more plausible than suggesting the necessity of the supernatural. You obviously disagree - but this is not proof to the contrary. Claiming the universal immutability of cause and effect as proof is also special pleading or maybe just a bad inference, and so - unproven - as is your "proof".
Summary - Special Pleading
"Uncreated Creator" - but no to "Uncreated Nature"
Circular Reasoning 1
1) The uncreated Creator exists -> because 5a) an uncreated Creator exists
2) And Is Jesus
3) Jesus is divine because he was resurrected
4) Because the Bible says 4a) -> I trust the Bible/Paul/writings implicitly (not physical proof)
5) Based on the authority of God -> (i.e) 5a) God/ an uncreated Creator exists
Circular Reasoning 2
1) Sin decreasing proves Finite Universe which indicates God's existence
2) Sin Decreasing because of Evolution of Consciousness
3) Which is caused by God - (How can you prove this?)
i.e. something (declared/asserted to be) caused by God indicates God's existence
Assertion is not proof nor does further special pleading constitute a disproof of these points, but only shows the weakness of your position.
Please don't ban me if there are spelling errors or formatting you don't like - simply mail me and I will come and edit them out.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks